Beluga Town Hall Flyer

Click on link below to download and print flyer

http://www.conservativepatriotsgroup.org/Beluga Townhall ad.pdf

  Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Critical Habitat Designation Information:

Ø  The State of Alaska has appropriated $1.25 million for and is currently in litigation with NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) in an effort to have the “endangered species” designation retracted for both the beluga whale and the polar bear. The NMFS has designated the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale illegally and has not taken into consideration the considerable regulations that already exist on all levels of government to ensure its safety.

Ø  The beluga whale controversy began with a lawsuit filed against the federal government by environmental extremists. Alaskans are feeling the backlash of the feds’ inability to stand up to the irrational but overly funded environmentalist lawyers.

Ø  The rates of decline or growth are based on population data after 1999 when subsistence harvest was prohibited, which makes sense…but the methods to determine that rate are simplistic and inherently flawed.  For instance,  the NMFS claims that the beluga whale population is declining at a rate of -1.46% based on 1999-2009 data; however this is based solely on the rate of decline when comparing just the two years 1999 and 2009. There is population growth in more than half of the years, and the average of these percentage changes is actually ZERO. The population is obviously variable enough that more data is required. Perhaps another ten years??!

 Ø  The NMFS estimated the number of whales in  1994 at a high of 1190 to a low of 222 whales in 2009  with all types of fluctuating counts in between.  The simple fact is that NOAA does not have good data on the actual number of whales in the inlet.  Yet they are willing to rest your financial future on inaccurate and incomplete data.

Ø  None of the actual data has been made available online, just the analyses. In order to critically evaluate the data it must be found…

Ø  The information is presented as though there will be little to no economic impact, but there are no promises made and the designation basically gives the federal government carte blanche on regulation and prohibition.

Ø  NMFS claims that the designation will cost $472,000. The shorter, more likely to be read, documents represent this number as the total cost of the CHD (critical habitat designation) and infer that this includes opportunity cost. This is literally just the expected administration costs of creating the designation.

Ø  The NMFS has NOT quantified the costs to the economy of Alaska and has arbitrarily stated that this cannot be quantified.

Ø  In order for this designation to be put in place it must not “impact the economy of Alaska.” It is the NMFS’ responsibility to prove that the designation’s benefits will outweigh its costs in a quantifiable way whenever possible. There is data available regarding future projects and historic revenue from the areas within the proposed CH but the NMFS is grossly understating the possible effects it will have on these and overstating the benefits.  No quantification is given beyond administrative costs

Ø  The NMFS states that “in terms of benefits of CHD, Cook Inlet and its vicinity is anticipated to be more attractive to workers in various industrial sectors, due to the enhanced scenic beauty, environmental quality, and other aesthetic attributes through designation of CH.” They give no evidence that this statement is true and/or that it has been proven. 

Ø  Scientists have basically no idea how much the population is affected by non-human factors such as killer whale predation, but it has been estimated by some scientists that this factor is larger than is being assumed by NMFS.

 Ø  The NMFS also uses the very minimal “genetic difference” of the Cook Inlet Beluga Whales as a reason for designating the Cook Inlet area critical habitat.  Humans share about 99.9% of the same genetics, yet there is a huge diversity in skin color, eyes, etc.

Ø  The following conclusion statement in the proposal sums up the tone of the NMFS’ document: subjective and unsupported: “it is not possible to provide quantitative estimates of all the projected benefits that may be uniquely attributable to the designation of CH for Cook Inlet beluga whale. However, it appears that if these benefits were somehow to be quantified and monetized, the anticipated benefits outweigh anticipated costs.” In other words we do not care how much it costs.

 Alaska has already informed the federal government that the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale is not endangered and is suing them on this count. We need to start at the heart of the issue and stop any designation until that lawsuit is settled!

Sample letter to NMFS regarding Belgua Whales Cook Inlet Critical Habitat listing 

Block Copy and Paste Below letter into your word processor.

Date

National Marine Fisheries Service

Protective Resources Management

222 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 43

Anchorage, Alaska  99513

ATTENTION:          Mr. Brad Smith

                                    Biologist – Point of Contact

SUBJECT:                  Beluga Critical Habitat Designation.  Cook Inlet, Alaska

                                  Public Comment

 Dear Mr. Smith:

 I am very concerned about the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposing to designate major portions of Cook Inlet as Critical Habitat under the jurisdiction of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  My fears are based on the fact that NMFS can use the Critical Habitat designation to restrict land uses that the agency believes will harm the beluga whales.  The Cook Inlet is vital for the economic survival of Anchorage.  Ships deliver goods to the Port of Anchorage.  The Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, and the entire railbelt derive their electricity from natural gas pumped from Cook Inlet.  Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley homes are also heated from this natural gas.  Since the ESA allows NMFS not to consider the economic impacts from restricting land uses, I am concerned that this designation will cripple our economy.

 On April 25, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that agencies must prove land uses will harm a species – not just allege it.  Cook Inlet is open to the North Pacific Ocean.  Belugas are found along the coasts of the Alaska Peninsula, Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Arctic Ocean.  It is very possible the whales are migrating to other parts of Alaska.  I also think it is a reach of the ESA to protect a genetic strain of the beluga whales.

 I urge the NMFS not to designated Cook Inlet as critical habitat.  Crippling Alaska’s growth is not the way to protect a genetic strain of whale.

 Sincerely,

  NOAA to Designate Upper Cook Inlet as Critical Habitat for Beluga Whales

 (Author: Mary Barr)

An amendment to the Endangered Species Act in 1978 defined critical habitat as the specific area, occupied by the species, which are critical to the conservation of the species and any specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are essential for the conservation of the species. The Cook Inlet Beluga whales are found only within the Cook Inlet and Knik arm, and do not mingle with the other populations of Beluga’s inhabiting the waters off Alaska. 

The territory under consideration is roughly 1/3 of  Cook Inlet, 3,016 square miles, including upper Cook Inlet, Knik Arm and the western shore of Cook Inlet and all of Kachemak Bay.  Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments of 2008 indicate that the northernmost parts of Cook Inlet, including the Susitna Delta, Knik Arm and Chickaloon Bay are the focus of the stock’s distribution in both summer and winter.  Public testimony will be accepted on this designation through January 31, 2010. 

Designation of critical habitat in this area will severely restrict development in the area.  Federal agencies are required to consult with NOAA’s Fisheries Service to ensure they do not fund, authorize or carry out any project that will destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat.  This designation also opens the door for lawsuits to prevent any private development in the area.  Since the area includes the mouths of freshwater streams flowing into the inlet, any inland development that might affect water quality or fish stocks will also be prohibited, or subject to lawsuits. 

Habitat concerns identified by the Alaska Marine Mammal stock Assessments of 2008 include competition with fisheries for available prey; contaminants and sounds associated with oil and gas exploration in Cook Inlet;  waste management and urban runoff; and construction projects in Upper Cook Inlet that may alter the physical habitat.  The Knik Bridge, port improvements, operation or development of mining operations are all potential victims of this designation. 

Comments on the proposed critical habitat area must be received by Jan 31, 2010.  Send comments to: Kaja Brix, Assistant regional Administrator, Protected Resources, Alaska Region,NMFS, ATTN:  Ellen Sebastian.  Comments must be identified by “RIN 0648-AX50” and sent by any one of the following methods: 

Electronic submissions:  Submit all electronic public comments via the federal eRulemaking Portal website at http://www.regulations.gov

Mail:  P.O. Box 21668, Juneau AK 99802-1668

Fax:  907-586-7557

Hand Deliver to the Federal Building:  709 West 9^th Street, Room 420A, Juneau AK